CC Explorer MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets details' but doesn't specify what details are returned, whether authentication is required, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. This is exemplary conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read operation with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally provide more context about what 'details' are returned. The description works but could be more complete given the lack of structured output information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage (the schema already documents 'The contract ID'), the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the structured data. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific contract by ID', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'consensus_get' or 'governance_get', but the contract focus is clear. This is a solid 4 - clear purpose but no sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'contract_updates_list', 'search', and other *_get tools, there's no indication of when this specific contract retrieval is appropriate versus broader searches or update listings. This is a 2 - no usage guidance provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.